Gittin

Buli means the rich, as it is written, And I will break the pride of your power,  and R. Joseph explained: These are the bula'oth  in Judah. Buti means the poor, as it is written, Thou shalt surely lend him sufficient.  Raba asked a certain foreigner,  What is the meaning of prosbul? He replied: The porsa  of the matter. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Orphans do not require a prosbul. So too Rami b. Hama learnt: Orphans do not require a prosbul, because Rabban Gamaliel  and his Beth din are the parents of orphans. We have learnt elsewhere: A prosbul is not made out unless [the debtor has] some land. If he has none, the creditor can present him with a spot from his own.  How much is a 'spot'? — R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rab: Even a stalk of a carob [is enough]. Rab Judah said: Even if he only lends him a space sufficient for his stove and oven, a prosbul may be made out on the strength of it. Is this so? Has not Hillel  learnt: 'A prosbul may be made out only [if the debtor] has a flowerpot with a hole in it', that is, if it has a hole, a prosbul may be made out,  but otherwise not. Now why should this be, seeing that the place it occupies [belongs to the debtor]?  — This rule applies only where the pot rests on some sticks.  R. Ashi would transfer to the debtor the trunk  of a date tree and then write a prosbul for the creditor. The Rabbis of the Academy of R. Ashi used to transfer their debts  to one another.  R. Jonathan transferred his debt to R. Hiyya b. Abba. Do I require anything more? he asked him. You do not, he replied. Our Rabbis taught; If the debtor has no land but one who is security for him has land, a prosbul may be made out for him. If neither he nor his security has land but a man who owes him money has land, a prosbul may be made out for him. [This is based] on the ruling of R. Nathan, as it has been taught: R. Nathan says: If a man lends another a maneh, and this one lends to a third, how do we know that the Beth din can take from the last [named] and give to the first [creditor]? Because it says, And he shall give it unto him in respect of whom he has been guilty. We have learnt elsewhere: The seventh year brings release from a debt, whether contracted with a bond or without a bond.  Both Rab and Samuel explain that 'with a bond' here means that the debtor has given a lien on his property [for the debt] and 'without a bond' means that he has given no lien. A fortiori then does the seventh year release from a debt contracted verbally. R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish, however, explain that 'with a bond' means a bond that does not contain a lien clause,  and 'without a bond' means a debt contracted verbally. A bond which secures a lien, however, is not cancelled.  It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish: A bond for a debt is cancelled [by the seventh year], but if it contains a lien clause it is not cancelled. It has further been taught: If the debtor has specified a certain field to the lender [as security] for his loans, it is not cancelled. Nay more: Even if he writes [only] 'All my property is security and guarantee for you,' it is not cancelled. A relative of R. Assi had a bond containing a lien clause. He came before R. Assi and said to him: Is this cancelled [by the seventh year] or not? — He replied: It is not cancelled. He left him and went to R. Johanan [and asked the same question]. [R. Johanan] replied: It is cancelled. R. Assi went to R. Johanan and asked him: Is it cancelled or not cancelled? — He replied: It is cancelled. But you yourself [once] said  that such a bond is not cancelled? — He replied: Because we have an opinion of our own [different from what we have learnt], are we to act on it? Said R. Assi: But there is a Baraitha in support of your opinion? — He replied: perhaps that follows Beth Shammai, who said  that a bond which is perfectly in order  is like one which has already been put into operation. We have learnt elsewhere: If a man lends another money on a pledge or if he hands his bonds to the Beth din, the debts are not cancelled [by the seventh year].  That this should be so in the latter case we understand, because it is the Beth din which seizes the debtor's property.  But why should it be so in the case of a loan given on a pledge? — Raba replied: Because [the lender] is already in possession of it.  Said Abaye to him: If that is so, suppose a man lends another money  and lives in his courtyard, in which case he is also in possession, is the debt in this case too not cancelled?  — He replied: A pledge  is different, because the holder becomes also its owner, according to the dictum of R. Isaac, who said, How do we know that a creditor becomes the owner of a pledge [given for the debt]? Because it says, And it shall be righteousness unto thee.  If he is not the owner, what righteousness is there [in restoring the pledge]? Hence we learn that a creditor becomes owner of the pledge. We have learnt elsewhere: